adfg

greenspun.com : LUSENET : HTML test forum : One Thread

New Millennium's First Congress
To Convene Split Nearly Even


   Fox News

Congress will appropriately enough be kicking off the new year and the new millennium with historical firsts when it is sworn in today.

Photo
AP
Hillary Clinton is the first presidential spouse to enter Congress.

Never has the wife of a president taken her oath alongside the nation's other elected lawmakers. Never has the Senate been divided 50-50 between two parties. Not since the early 1950s has Congress been so evenly split. And not since the mid-1950s have Republicans had control of both the legislative and the executive branches of the federal government.

It will be a bittersweet moment for the first family when Hillary Clinton is sworn in as the junior senator from New York. Her husband, President Clinton, reluctantly leaving office in only 17 days, will be watching from the visitors' gallery above the Senate floor. The oath will be read to her by Vice President Al Gore, the man whom they'd hoped would be the successor to the White House. And when Congress begins its work, the first lady will be thrust into a Capitol building where a Republican president will be working to cut taxes and loosen the federal grip on many programs.

On the other side, Senate GOP leaders are already having to deal with Democratic demands for equal committee memberships and opportunities to speak in the chamber.

"We don't have everything worked out," but the two sides are close, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Tuesday after meeting again with Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.

Including Clinton, 11 new senators and 41 new House members will be among the 34 senators and 434 House members sworn into office, with a vacancy in the House from last month's death of Rep. Julian Dixon, D-Calif.

The new Congress will continue the GOP control of both chambers that began in 1995.

But even with two branches technically in his pocket, Bush will govern under the shadow of his excruciatingly close presidential election victory over Gore, who won the popular vote by 500,000 but lost in the electoral college.

The nation's ambivalence toward the parties was also reflected in the Senate's 50-50 division, which in turn was almost matched by the House's slender GOP majority of 221-211, plus two independents evenly divided between the parties and the vacancy.

But because Republican Dick Cheney will become vice president on Jan. 20, when he and Bush are inaugurated, the GOP will eventually control the Senate. Under the chamber's rules, the vice president can vote to break ties.

Not since the 83rd Congress, elected in 1952, have the two chambers been so closely cleaved. Then, the GOP held the House 221-213, with one independent, and the Senate by 48-47, plus an independent who sided with Republicans.

Democrats will control the Senate for the first 17 days of the session, because Gore will be vice president until former Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Cheney take their oaths. During that time, Daschle will be majority leader — giving him the right to be recognized to speak first and thus set the Senate's agenda.

Consistent with their party's demands for power sharing, Democratic leaders said they would not attempt to ram anything through the Senate during their brief period in the majority.

They also said they would let committees begin meeting quickly to prepare some of Bush's picks for top administration jobs for Senate confirmation. That could come as early as Jan. 22, the Monday after Bush becomes president.

Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., will be returning to his second two-year stint in the House's leadership position of speaker.

But there won't be familiar faces among many committee chairmen, thanks to a House GOP rule that allows chairmen to serve no more than six years.

Both chambers will meet in joint session on Saturday for Congress' ceremonial task of reading the electoral votes that made Bush the next president.

After that, the House will not be at work until early February. Some Senate committees will work through the month on nominations, but little other work in that chamber is expected.

Scores of parties were planned across Capitol Hill. Underlining the significance of raising money for lawmakers, at least one of them — freshman Rep.-elect Mark Kirk, R-Ill. — scheduled a fund-raising dinner Wednesday night at a Washington restaurant.

—The Associated Press contributed to this report.



-- dfg (adfggadfg@aol.com), January 03, 2001

Answers



-- (one@loop.1), January 09, 2001.

LAST EDITED ON Jan-16-01 AT 06:13 AM (EST)

You give them detailed directions to an item in the store, they come back 20 min. later, expecting you to remeber them, and saying they couldn't find it and want you to prove that it exists and then answer 500 questions about it.


They force you to dig out a TV bigger than you are from the thick jungles of the back and when you finally get it out, they decide they'll just go with the thirteen inch insted. (Oh, and could you help me out to my car?)

They continually ask where the batteries are, despite the gigantic 5 ft. inflatable battery suspended from the cieling, and the fact that if you are looking at me, you are looking at the batteries behind me.Their purchase costs $10.05, they have $20 and demand you "forget about the five cents".

They buy cigarettes, and when told "you can't smoke them in here" say "Don't you think it's weird I can buy them here but can't use them here?" (Not at all, it's a gas station and anway, we also sell condoms).

They threaten to sue when you won't let them pay $3 on credit card (when there are signs all over the place saying it's a $5 minumum for credit cards, and they have the cash anyway).

They come in with a pile of small change, complain when you make them count it, and it act surprised when it turns out to be 10 cents short.

They think you should know exactly what they want cause they come in maybe once a month. Then they act like you have to remeber it for next time.

A 17 year old comes up to buy cigarettes and when asked for an ID, shows it to you then, swears they are 18 even though they are about 4 months off from being 18.. (this happened and even another employee agreed with the customer, until I did out the math on a peice of paper for them...both)

People come in to buy cigarettes and get upset because you asked for their ID last week...Ya like I remeber everyone I ID.
They ask you if you speak Spanish, when you tell them "No", so they give you their life story in Spanish anyway.

They ask for an item that they claim is not on the shelf, you're kind enough to go get it from the basement only to find out that the shelf is FULL!

They buy turkeys Thanksgiving morning then return them that afternoon blaming you that it wouldn't thaw on time.

They insist on bringing their entire extended family to the store including all aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, godparents, and in-laws to only buy 1 item.

You work as a stock boy and customers trying paying you for their stuff not realizing that's what the cashiers are there for.

Something is Buy One Get One Free, and they ask you if they can only take the one free.

They ask you what the ingredients mean on food. This really bad on ice cream when some of the ingredients are 15 letters long, and they get mad when you don't know claiming you sell the item you should know what's in it.

They try to write a check for their food when there is a sign in front of the register that states "cash only."
They "lose" a gift certificate, have no proof it ever existed, try to get it replaced, and then try to point to you (the innocent bystanding employee) and claim that you sold it to them on Monday. This happened to me once. The manager asked me if this was true, while the customer was emphatically saying oh yes, it was her, and I said I was off on Monday. D'oh!

They deface books--tear pictures out, write on the pages, spill coffee on them. (Curse whatever book chain started that coffee in the bookstores nonsense!)

They are older people who drive up in a new Cadillac and tip you 50 cents because 50 years ago, that was a good tip.

They open the adult magazines in the store and blissfully paw through them, and when you ask them not to read the adult mags in the store, they claim "It was already opened". Be that as it may, moron, the sign says, "Do Not Read In Store."

They try to get you in trouble via the suggestion sheets or comment cards.

They do mysterious/disgusting/smelly things in the public restroom.

They don't measure their windows before shopping for curtains. Instead, they remove several from their packages, exclaiming "No, that's too long/short for my window." Then, they proceed to leave the curtains lying unfolded on the ground and hang the empty packaging back on the hook.

They point at a t-shirt display and ask " do you have this is size *" and when I ask if they've looked through the shirts they say "no, I'm too lazy" and laugh....yeah...real funny jerkoff

They dump all the salt from the shaker on the table and write "you suck" in the mess (yeah I'm the one with the problem)

They order food from you at a fast food place and then go sit down, expecting me to carry it all over to them (if I've suddenly become your waitress, why arent you tipping me?)

People insist on unfolding every size small because they might fit differently

You do some remodeling in your store and the same customer will come in day after day and make they same comments about the remodel. (You told us once. What are you trying to do drill it into my head?)

The customer who buys only one gallon of milk, then proceeds to tell you not to bag it too heavy.

They claim that a store policy they were unaware of shouldn't apply to them because they're "not from around here."

They'll get to the front of the line and complain that they've been waiting an age. I say, "I'm terribly sorry. May I help you?" "Well, could I look at the menu first?"

They call in to have a pizza delivered but they live 5 miles out side our area, but they insist that we delivered there before.

They order a pizza which will take an hour to make. Then come in 15 minutes later and wonder why it isn't ready. Threaten to kill you because its not ready. Then leave. (Kid you not this happened to me)


-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 22, 2001.

specter is haunting America — the specter of Clintonism. Yes, the man is gone, off to a lifetime of golfing at all-white clubs, biting his lip in the pulpits of black churches while the hallelujahs soar, goosing waitresses, slithering in and out of shady business deals, being collared by showbiz bores at Barbra Streisand's parties, and defending himself in court. And yes, his lady has no future beyond the U.S. Senate. The people of New York, trapped in their little Stalinist time-warp, still fretting about why that nice Mr. Adlai Stevenson didn't get in in '52 (my explanation: WE NEED ADLAI BADLY! was the worst campaign slogan ever) will probably go on voting for her until, like Gagoola the hag in King Solomon's Mines, "She has lived so long that none can remember when she was not old, and always she it is who has trained the witch hunters, and made the land evil in the sight of the heavens above." But given her far-left paper trail and her amazing capacity to make people detest her where'er she treads, Hillary's maxed out: She has no real future.

Yet still the presence of that specter can be felt, an icy wind blowing to us from the unseeable future, disturbing our sleep, arresting us in the midst of our daily tasks, chilling and warning us. Bill and Hill are history, but Clintonism may yet rise again, like Glenn Close from that bathtub. For, ladies and gentlemen, the tworch has been paaahssed to a noooh genewation of Clintons. On February 27th, Chelsea Clinton will turn 21.

At this point I had better make a confession. It's a bad one, I know it. It is low, contemptible and — yes! — mean-spirited. It may very well place me beyond the pale of civilized society. I don't care. Truth will out, I will be heard. Brace yourself: I hate Chelsea Clinton.

I admit it's not easy to justify my loathing of this person. I can pick out causes, but none of them is one hundred per cent rational. As an Englishmen, I naturally start from a base of resentment against anyone with perfect dentition. This whole area is mildly radioactive for me right now, though, having just dug myself out (metaphorically speaking) from under a heap of e-mails I got in reaction to my "double-bagger" piece the other day. So let's leave the young lady's looks altogether out of it. I am myself, as numerous correspondents felt moved to observe, no oil painting. (Note to webmaster: Whose damn fool idea was it to put our photographs on the site?)

Nor does Chelsea have much of a track record to scrutinize. How could she have? There are some pretty clear indicators, which I shall get to in a moment; but she has not looted the White House, lied under oath, bombed an aspirin factory in Africa to get her personal legal problems off the front pages, raped anybody, used public employees to pimp for her, sold the Department of Defense to the Chinese Communist Party for cold cash, taken a fat bribe dressed up as a "commodities trade," or written a book arguing that parents cannot be trusted to raise their children. I note, however, that she doesn't deserve any credit for not having done these things; she just hasn't had time yet.

So what's my beef? Well, first there is the Willie Mufferson factor. You may recall that Tom Sawyer had a schoolmate named Willie Mufferson, the town's Model Boy.

He always brought his mother to church, and was the pride of all the matrons. The boys all hated him, he was so good. And besides, he had been "thrown up to them" so much. His white handkerchief was hanging out of his pocket behind, as usual on Sundays — accidentally. Tom had no handkerchief, and he looked upon boys who had, as snobs.

Who, in current public life, has been "thrown up to us" so much as Chelsea? As originally presented to us in the 1992 campaign, she was a shy pre-teen whose parents were determined to keep her out of the public eye. This lasted until the until the focus groups started reporting that the public saw the Clintons as a cold, self-obsessed power couple (imagine!), at which point People magazine was called in for a photo-shoot of Hillary and Chelsea in a hammock. Fair enough; and once they had got the White House, Chelsea was indeed kept out of view for the first five years or so of the Clinton presidency. Then the gush started.

For one thing, Chelsea had now reached the age at which it is acceptable to pass public comment on a woman's physical appearance. I'm not going there myself, for reasons I have already made clear, but by 1997 we had had a slew of feature stories about how Chelsea had "blossomed" into a "beautiful" and "poised" young woman. ("Poised" is one of those words that are inescapable in this context, but appear practically nowhere else — rather like the special language, incomprehensible to commoners, by which Japanese emperors had to be addressed.) Well, fa-di-la. If my parents had had as much money as hers have — by stealing it, never let it be forgotten, or by bribing and lying their way into well-paid public offices — I'd be pretty damn "poised," too. Class envy? Mmm, not altogether. Sure, my parents lived in public housing (the other kind, not executive mansions), but I don't recall that they stole things, or lied under oath, or raped anybody.

And then there was the Lewinsky scandal, impeachment, and that famous shot of the three Clintons walking to the helicopter, Chelsea in the middle, holding hands with her parents. The buzz at the time was that Chelsea did it for Mom; was furious with Dad but was begged by Hillary — presumably to protect her "political viability" — to stage the whole phony performance. The public went Aaaaaah! I had a different take on it. Chelsea was 18 at this point, coming on 19, certainly old enough to make decisions. (Hey, Henry the Fifth was governing Wales at 16.) This was the point at which she decided to sign on to the Great Clinton Project. Which is, has always been, and forever will be, to enrich the family from the public fisc, and to lie, bomb, bribe, and intimidate your way out of trouble when necessary. At that point my hatred of Chelsea found its feet.

Now, you may say: Come on, Derb, the girl was just being loyal to her folks. What would you have her do — publicly denounce them, like some Stalinist brat? No — though I think a really well-"poised" young lady might very well have said: "Dad, I'm with you. You're my Dad, and I'll love and support you any decent way I can. But the right thing at this point is for you to resign the presidency, because you have done things a president ought not do. I will not do anything that helps you stay president." Look, if my Dad was a Mafioso, I might indeed be loyal to him, and defend him, and help keep him out of jail. But then, any decent person would hate me as much as he hated my Dad, and rightly so. I would be an accessory to his crimes, certainly in morality, if not in law.

But this is all rationalization. More than anything, I admit, I hate Chelsea because she is a Clinton. Not just genetically a Clinton, but in spirit and habit and manner. The evidence for this is now, I think, sufficient to indict.

Item: Last Christmas Eve, the Clintons attended Midnight Holy Communion at the National Cathedral in Washington. Chelsea was the first Clinton to show up…seven minutes into the introit! Mom and Dad were even later, of course. But why did Chelsea have to be late at all? To Holy Communion! It's just so…Clintonian, the utter lack of regard for other people. If you are a Clinton, other people don't exist, except for the few seconds they are handing over money to you or…well, you know.

Item: At the Middle East peace talks in Camp David last year, Chelsea took dinner with her father and Ehud Barak, and so monopolized the conversation, the Israelis are said to have been offended. Excuse me, but what the hell is Chelsea doing inserting herself into extremely delicate diplomatic negotiations? What position does she hold in the diplomatic corps? Who appointed her? We are told that Chelsea is by far the most traveled presidential offspring in history. On whose tab? To what purpose? Did she turn down any of these junkets? Of course not. Again, it's so Clintonian — the sense of entitlement, of sneering, lofty indifference to the fact that this money I am spending has been ripped from the pockets of hard-working Americans, most of them much poorer than me, by force of law. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

Item: When Chelsea went off to Stanford, we were told that she planned to study to become a pediatric cardiologist. How noble! — to give over one's life to curing the heart problems of little kiddies! Yeah, right. A Clinton, giving over her life for anything at all other than…herself. Now that there is no need for spin, we hear that her next stop is at Oxford University to study economics. That's about m-o-n-e-y. Much more interesting than those damn kids and their stupid messed-up hearts.

Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past — I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble — recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed. (This sounds complicated, but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was sent to the offender's home town, where they killed everyone they could find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet — "let God sort 'em out".)

We don't, of course, institutionalize such principles in our society, and a good thing too. Our humanity and forbearance, however, has a cost. The cost is, that the vile genetic inheritance of Bill and Hillary Clinton may live on to plague us in the future. It isn't over, folks. Dr. Nancy Snyderman, a "friend of the family" (how much money did she give them?) is quoted as saying that Chelsea shows every sign of following her parents into politics. "She's been bred for it," avers Dr. Snyderman. Be afraid: be very afraid.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 22, 2001.


Be Very Afraid
Clinton’s legacy.

Mr. Derbyshire is also an NR contributing editor
February 15, 2001 10:10 a.m.

specter is haunting America — the specter of Clintonism. Yes, the man is gone, off to a lifetime of golfing at all-white clubs, biting his lip in the pulpits of black churches while the hallelujahs soar, goosing waitresses, slithering in and out of shady business deals, being collared by showbiz bores at Barbra Streisand's parties, and defending himself in court. And yes, his lady has no future beyond the U.S. Senate. The people of New York, trapped in their little Stalinist time-warp, still fretting about why that nice Mr. Adlai Stevenson didn't get in in '52 (my explanation: WE NEED ADLAI BADLY! was the worst campaign slogan ever) will probably go on voting for her until, like Gagoola the hag in King Solomon's Mines, "She has lived so long that none can remember when she was not old, and always she it is who has trained the witch hunters, and made the land evil in the sight of the heavens above." But given her far-left paper trail and her amazing capacity to make people detest her where'er she treads, Hillary's maxed out: She has no real future.

Yet still the presence of that specter can be felt, an icy wind blowing to us from the unseeable future, disturbing our sleep, arresting us in the midst of our daily tasks, chilling and warning us. Bill and Hill are history, but Clintonism may yet rise again, like Glenn Close from that bathtub. For, ladies and gentlemen, the tworch has been paaahssed to a noooh genewation of Clintons. On February 27th, Chelsea Clinton will turn 21.

At this point I had better make a confession. It's a bad one, I know it. It is low, contemptible and — yes! — mean-spirited. It may very well place me beyond the pale of civilized society. I don't care. Truth will out, I will be heard. Brace yourself: I hate Chelsea Clinton.

I admit it's not easy to justify my loathing of this person. I can pick out causes, but none of them is one hundred per cent rational. As an Englishmen, I naturally start from a base of resentment against anyone with perfect dentition. This whole area is mildly radioactive for me right now, though, having just dug myself out (metaphorically speaking) from under a heap of e-mails I got in reaction to my "double-bagger" piece the other day. So let's leave the young lady's looks altogether out of it. I am myself, as numerous correspondents felt moved to observe, no oil painting. (Note to webmaster: Whose damn fool idea was it to put our photographs on the site?)

Nor does Chelsea have much of a track record to scrutinize. How could she have? There are some pretty clear indicators, which I shall get to in a moment; but she has not looted the White House, lied under oath, bombed an aspirin factory in Africa to get her personal legal problems off the front pages, raped anybody, used public employees to pimp for her, sold the Department of Defense to the Chinese Communist Party for cold cash, taken a fat bribe dressed up as a "commodities trade," or written a book arguing that parents cannot be trusted to raise their children. I note, however, that she doesn't deserve any credit for not having done these things; she just hasn't had time yet.

So what's my beef? Well, first there is the Willie Mufferson factor. You may recall that Tom Sawyer had a schoolmate named Willie Mufferson, the town's Model Boy.

He always brought his mother to church, and was the pride of all the matrons. The boys all hated him, he was so good. And besides, he had been "thrown up to them" so much. His white handkerchief was hanging out of his pocket behind, as usual on Sundays — accidentally. Tom had no handkerchief, and he looked upon boys who had, as snobs.

Who, in current public life, has been "thrown up to us" so much as Chelsea? As originally presented to us in the 1992 campaign, she was a shy pre-teen whose parents were determined to keep her out of the public eye. This lasted until the until the focus groups started reporting that the public saw the Clintons as a cold, self-obsessed power couple (imagine!), at which point People magazine was called in for a photo-shoot of Hillary and Chelsea in a hammock. Fair enough; and once they had got the White House, Chelsea was indeed kept out of view for the first five years or so of the Clinton presidency. Then the gush started.

For one thing, Chelsea had now reached the age at which it is acceptable to pass public comment on a woman's physical appearance. I'm not going there myself, for reasons I have already made clear, but by 1997 we had had a slew of feature stories about how Chelsea had "blossomed" into a "beautiful" and "poised" young woman. ("Poised" is one of those words that are inescapable in this context, but appear practically nowhere else — rather like the special language, incomprehensible to commoners, by which Japanese emperors had to be addressed.) Well, fa-di-la. If my parents had had as much money as hers have — by stealing it, never let it be forgotten, or by bribing and lying their way into well-paid public offices — I'd be pretty damn "poised," too. Class envy? Mmm, not altogether. Sure, my parents lived in public housing (the other kind, not executive mansions), but I don't recall that they stole things, or lied under oath, or raped anybody.

And then there was the Lewinsky scandal, impeachment, and that famous shot of the three Clintons walking to the helicopter, Chelsea in the middle, holding hands with her parents. The buzz at the time was that Chelsea did it for Mom; was furious with Dad but was begged by Hillary — presumably to protect her "political viability" — to stage the whole phony performance. The public went Aaaaaah! I had a different take on it. Chelsea was 18 at this point, coming on 19, certainly old enough to make decisions. (Hey, Henry the Fifth was governing Wales at 16.) This was the point at which she decided to sign on to the Great Clinton Project. Which is, has always been, and forever will be, to enrich the family from the public fisc, and to lie, bomb, bribe, and intimidate your way out of trouble when necessary. At that point my hatred of Chelsea found its feet.

Now, you may say: Come on, Derb, the girl was just being loyal to her folks. What would you have her do — publicly denounce them, like some Stalinist brat? No — though I think a really well-"poised" young lady might very well have said: "Dad, I'm with you. You're my Dad, and I'll love and support you any decent way I can. But the right thing at this point is for you to resign the presidency, because you have done things a president ought not do. I will not do anything that helps you stay president." Look, if my Dad was a Mafioso, I might indeed be loyal to him, and defend him, and help keep him out of jail. But then, any decent person would hate me as much as he hated my Dad, and rightly so. I would be an accessory to his crimes, certainly in morality, if not in law.

But this is all rationalization. More than anything, I admit, I hate Chelsea because she is a Clinton. Not just genetically a Clinton, but in spirit and habit and manner. The evidence for this is now, I think, sufficient to indict.

Item: Last Christmas Eve, the Clintons attended Midnight Holy Communion at the National Cathedral in Washington. Chelsea was the first Clinton to show up…seven minutes into the introit! Mom and Dad were even later, of course. But why did Chelsea have to be late at all? To Holy Communion! It's just so…Clintonian, the utter lack of regard for other people. If you are a Clinton, other people don't exist, except for the few seconds they are handing over money to you or…well, you know.

Item: At the Middle East peace talks in Camp David last year, Chelsea took dinner with her father and Ehud Barak, and so monopolized the conversation, the Israelis are said to have been offended. Excuse me, but what the hell is Chelsea doing inserting herself into extremely delicate diplomatic negotiations? What position does she hold in the diplomatic corps? Who appointed her? We are told that Chelsea is by far the most traveled presidential offspring in history. On whose tab? To what purpose? Did she turn down any of these junkets? Of course not. Again, it's so Clintonian — the sense of entitlement, of sneering, lofty indifference to the fact that this money I am spending has been ripped from the pockets of hard-working Americans, most of them much poorer than me, by force of law. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

Item: When Chelsea went off to Stanford, we were told that she planned to study to become a pediatric cardiologist. How noble! — to give over one's life to curing the heart problems of little kiddies! Yeah, right. A Clinton, giving over her life for anything at all other than…herself. Now that there is no need for spin, we hear that her next stop is at Oxford University to study economics. That's about m-o-n-e-y. Much more interesting than those damn kids and their stupid messed-up hearts.

Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past — I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble — recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed. (This sounds complicated, but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was sent to the offender's home town, where they killed everyone they could find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet — "let God sort 'em out".)

We don't, of course, institutionalize such principles in our society, and a good thing too. Our humanity and forbearance, however, has a cost. The cost is, that the vile genetic inheritance of Bill and Hillary Clinton may live on to plague us in the future. It isn't over, folks. Dr. Nancy Snyderman, a "friend of the family" (how much money did she give them?) is quoted as saying that Chelsea shows every sign of following her parents into politics. "She's been bred for it," avers Dr. Snyderman. Be afraid: be very afraid.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 22, 2001.




-- (h@i.j), March 02, 2001.




-- (a@b.c), March 02, 2001.



-- (a@b.c), March 02, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ